US v. Bingley, (4th Cir. 2003)

Docket Number: 03-4477

Linked as:

Text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4477 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JEFFREY BINGLEY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CR-02-123)

Submitted: November 6, 2003 Decided: November 17, 2003

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Miller Williams Shealy,

Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Jeffrey Bingley pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846(a)(2000).

Bingley§ 4B1.1 (2002) based on three previous rug felonies delineated in the Presentence Report. Bingley did not object to the Presentence ReportÂ’s findings at the sentencing hearing, and does not point out error on appeal. We conclude the district court did not commit clear error in its application of the career offender provisions. Our review of the transcript of the plea proceeding reveals that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in accepting BingleyÂ’s guilty plea.

In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm BingleyÂ’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. CounselÂ’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED